Tag Archives: Al Gore

Green Party’s Jill Stein to the rescue with push for three-state recount

Updated below (on Friday, November 25, 2016)

Although on November 8 she garnered only around 1 percent of the presidential vote — and although she was shit and pissed upon mercilessly by the shameless, anti-democratic, Democrat-in-name-only, “feminist” Billarybots — two-time Green Party presidential candidate Jill Stein (shown above) is pushing for a recount in three battleground Rust-Belt states that some experts say Billary Clinton might actually have won: Wisconsin, Michigan and Pennsylvania. And thus far Stein has raised more than $4.3 million for the recount effort while Team Billary, of course, has done exactly nothing.

As has been reported for the past day or two or three, “A group of election lawyers and data experts has asked Hillary Clinton’s campaign to call for a recount of the vote totals in three battleground states — Wisconsin, Michigan and Pennsylvania — to ensure that a cyberattack was not committed to manipulate the totals.”

Deadlines for requesting — and paying for — recounts in these three states are quickly approaching, with Wisconsin’s deadline being tomorrow, according to The Associated Press.

Just as Al Gore essentially rolled over and played dead apparently in order to stay “above it all” (my words) in 2000 when George W. Bush & Co. blatantly stole the White House (with a deficit in the popular vote of more than 500,000), thus far Team Billary similarly pussily hasn’t requested any recount, of course (and the deficit in the popular vote this time thus far is more than 2 fucking million).

To the potential rescue has come Green Party candidate Jill Stein, who, although of course no recount will put her in the White House, has the standing to request recounts in these states because she appeared on their November 8 ballots.

It’s quite possible that the recounts will turn up nothing, but it wouldn’t be surprising if they turned up some surprising shit. Malfeasance or “innocent error” (my words) certainly would explain how the pussy-grabbing Donald J. Trump “beat” Billary Clinton in Wisconsin, Michigan and Pennsylvania, when Wisconsin hadn’t gone to a Repugnican since 1984, Michigan hadn’t gone to a Repugnican since 1988, and ditto for Pennsylvania.

As of this writing, Stein has raised more than $4.3 million in donations for recount efforts in the three states.

Establishmentarians are scoffing, of course, because, just as we were supposed to do in 2000, we commoners are just supposed to shut the fuck up while the White House possibly has been stolen yet again. We’re certainly not supposed to point out that it’s possible that a presidential election still can be stolen, because such information is inconvenient and possibly even — gasp! — unsettling!

Wisconsin, Michigan and Pennsylvania together have 46 electoral votes. Should it turn out that Billary actually won them, that would boost her current electoral vote count from 232 to 278 — meaning that she, not Der Fuhrer Donald Trump, won the Electoral College.

Even if it turns out that just one of these three states actually has flipped to Billary, it it puts the entire presidential election into question (as if Billary’s 2-million-plus popular-vote lead hasn’t done that already!).

The recounts are worth it. At the very least, presumably they’d give us some degree of insight into how much we can — or cannot — trust our presidential elections.

I’ve given $20 to the recount effort; I encourage you to give to the effort too if you can.

Stein’s recount fundraising page right now says that the cost of the Wisconsin recount has been covered through the donations received thus far, and says that the recount request deadlines are tomorrow for Wisconsin, Monday for Pennsylvania, and Wednesday for Michigan.

This thing is worth a shot. Democracy — true, actual democracy — is worth it.*

Update (Friday, November 25, 2016): Politico reports that today Jill Stein filed her recount petition in Wisconsin.

Interestingly, though, the Politico writer, a Zach Montellaro, apparently can’t help himself from editorializing throughout his “reportage.” He notes that Stein “barely [made] the 5 p.m. EST deadline,” as though that were relevant (it would have been newsworthy had she missed the deadline), and he feels it important to note all of the fundraising webpage’s changes and updates, even though this (the plan to request a three-state recount) has been a rather fast-moving and quickly changing last-minute development — and even though it’s unprecedented, to my knowledge.

Montellaro also used this slanderous language in his “reportage”: “On the back of a debunked fear of election tampering in key swing states, the Green Party presidential candidate raised nearly $5 million to fund a recount effort.”

“Election tampering in key swing states” has not been debunked, not with actual physical evidence, and while Nate Silver’s fivethirtyeight.com widely has been quoted as having thrown cold water on the idea that some swing states’ reported vote totals are wrong, fivethirtyeight.com actually concluded thusly:

… It’s possible nonetheless that the election was hacked, in the sense that anything is possible. (And the best hackers are experts in erasing their tracks.)

Maybe hackers knew which control variables we’d look at and manipulated the vote in a way that it would look like it was caused by race, education and population driving different voting preferences.

Maybe hackers didn’t manipulate the share of votes in individual counties, but rather the turnout, increasing the number of votes in counties likely to favor one candidate or another.

Maybe some irregularities at the county level in early Wisconsin vote-counting are signs of wider problems. Maybe we’d find something if we dug down to the precinct level, or if we looked at other states with mixed voting systems.

But at a time when the number of voters without confidence in the accuracy of the vote count is rising, the burden of proof ought to be on people claiming there was electoral fraud.

The paradox is that in our current electoral system, without routine audits, seeking proof requires calling for a recount, which in itself can undermine confidence in the vote.

Fivethirtyeight.com got it right there until it totally pussed out at the end for whatever reason or reasons (knee-jerk, self-serving establishmentarianism, apparently, but who knows?).

“The burden of proof ought to be on people claiming there was electoral fraud,” but when they don’t have access to the voting system equipment, computers, ballots, etc. — which are in the sole possession of local governmental entities — how, exactly, can they prove their allegations without being in possession of the physical evidence?

And which is more important: “confidence in the accuracy of the vote count” (which easily could be just blind confidence) or a good reason to have confidence in the vote?

There apparently is a widespread belief (which has persisted at least since the 2000 theft of the White House) that it’s more important to have quick election results that aren’t questioned — you know, so that we don’t “undermine confidence in the vote” — than that we have election results that are accurate, and that’s incredibly fucked up.

Anyway, again, the subtext of Politico’s Montellaro’s “reportage” is to cast aspersions upon Stein, apparently. Among other things, he snidely notes that much of the money that Stein has been raising — more than $5.2 million thus far, per Stein’s recount fundraising webpage as I type this sentence — will go toward lawyers’ fees, as though it were Stein’s fault that you need lawyers to handle this shit and that lawyers, always the opportunists, frequently go on their legal-fee feeding frenzies.

I just gave another donation to the recount effort. That’s what unfair, hypocritical, usually establishmentarian attacks on people who have courage and who are trying to do the right thing often spur me to do.

P.S. Politico does make one interesting, fairly newsworthy note, which it saves for the very last paragraph; it reports that Jill Stein has raised more money for the three-state recount than she raised for her 2016 presidential bid.

I mean, that’s interesting. How relevant it is I’m not sure, but it’s interesting.

But it’s also interesting that enough people have questioned the “official” November 8 presidential election results that thus far they have donated more than $5 million to have the votes in three swing/Rust-Belt states recounted — and that they have done this outside of the partisan duopoly of the Coke Party and the Pepsi Party. (On that note, it recently was reported on MSNBC that the Obama White House encouraged Billary Clinton to concede to Donald Trump quickly you know, in order to avoid ugliness, because, you know, it’s more important to avoid ugliness and to remain “above it all” than it is to have elections in which the winners, and not the losers, actually take office.)

Again: Democracy is worth it; $5 million is chump change toward what election integrity is worth.

Anyone who has read me for the past year-plus knows that I’m no fan of Billary Clinton, but while Team Billary and the Billarybots totally fucked Bernie Sanders out of the party’s presidential nomination, the fact remains that on November 8 Billary Clinton indisputably won the popular vote by a huge margin, and Trump’s reported wins in the traditionally Democratic Rust-Belt states look suspicious enough to double check.

*Jill Stein’s fundraising webpage for the recount effort gives this important background information:

In 2004, the Cobb/LaMarche [Green Party presidential] campaign demanded a recount in Ohio. Because of their efforts, an election administrator went to jail. We also exposed the profound problems with DRE machines [link is mine], which helped launch an election integrity movement. That provoked California to engage in a “top-to-bottom” review of [its] voting system, which culminated in the abolition of DRE machines.

The Green Party Platform calls for “publicly-owned, open source voting equipment and deploy it across the nation to ensure high national standards, performance, transparency and accountability; use verifiable paper ballots; and institute mandatory automatic random precinct recounts to ensure a high level of accuracy in election results.”

Election integrity experts have independently identified Michigan, Pennsylvania and Wisconsin as states where “statistical anomalies” raised concerns. Our effort to recount votes in those states is not intended to help Hillary Clinton.

These recounts are part of an election integrity movement to attempt to shine a light on just how untrustworthy the U.S. election system is. [Emphasis is mine.]

All money raised goes toward recounts in Wisconsin, Michigan and Pennsylvania. We hope to do recounts in all three states. If we only raise sufficient money for two, we will demand recounts in two states. If we only raise enough money for one, we will demand a recount in one state.

We cannot guarantee a recount will happen in any of these states we are targeting. We can only pledge we will demand recounts in those states.

If we raise more than what’s needed, the surplus will also go toward election integrity efforts and to promote voting system reform.

Here are the filing fees and deadlines for each state:

  • Wisconsin: $1.1 million by November 25 [tomorrow]
  • Pennsylvania: $0.5 million by November 28 [Monday]
  • Michigan: $0.6 million by November 30 [Wednesday]

Those are filing fees alone. The costs associated with recounts are a function of state law. Attorney’s fees are likely to be another $2 million to $3 million, [and] then there are the costs of the statewide recount observers in all three states. The total cost is likely to be $6 million to $7 million. …

Advertisements

Leave a comment

Filed under Uncategorized

That wasn’t a debate — it was a debacle (or: Trump is toast — Part 2)

Donald Trump spent much of Sunday night’s debate shit show creepily stalking Billary Clinton. Oh, well; at least he didn’t try to grab her by the pussy…

In case you were wondering, I did watch the second presidential debate on Sunday night (I did not live-blog it). Afterward I wanted to take a scalding hot shower and scrub myself with a wire brush.

That, of course, was mostly the uber-slimy Der Fuhrer Donald Trump’s fault. Team Trump’s having Bill Clinton’s alleged sex victims present in the debate hall (as though Billy Boy were running for a third term, which he kind of is but isn’t actually) wasn’t at all clever or effective; it was mind-blowingly sleazy, even for El Trumpo. And from promising to imprison his political opponents should he become president to declaring that Muslim Americans must police each other in a paranoid, anti-Muslim police state, it’s crystal fucking clear what fascist demagogue Trump’s agenda is: unabashed fascism, turning the United States of America into Nazi Germany 2.0, with him in the Hitler role.

When cornered on his 2005 comments about grabbing women by the pussy (made when he was just a young lad of 59 years — you know, locker-room banter [even though he wasn’t inside of a locker room]), Trump essentially stated that Hey, the members of ISIS are worse than he is!

I want to see poor people of color try that “defense” in our courts of law when they have been charged even with misdemeanors. It’s interesting how power and privilege (in Trump’s case, brought about by his biological sex, his race, his generation and his wealth [assuming that he even really is all that wealthy]) rear their ugly heads.

Only Donald Trump is so fucking sleazy as to make the corrupt, pay-to-play, political human weather vane on crack Billary Clinton seem like an angel by comparison. The widely despised Billary is very lucky that her opponent is the worst candidate that the Repugnican Party has put forth in many, many years, if not in all of U.S. history.*

Anyway, it’s clear that Trump must never sit in the Oval Office.

Of course, he very most likely will not; fivethirtyeight.com right now gives him no more than a 16.7 percent chance of winning to Billary’s 83.3 percent chance.

I still plan to vote for Green Party presidential candidate Jill Stein, since fivethirtyeight.com puts Billary’s chances of winning my home state of California (and thus all 55 of its electoral votes) at more than 99.9 percent.

I’ve heard the argument that those of us in the deep-blue states should vote for Billary even if we don’t like her, since Trump and his treasonous, fascist followers will have a talking point should he actually win the popular vote but lose the Electoral College, like Al Gore did in 2000. (Well, Gore probably won Florida and thus the Electoral College also, but whatevs.)

Um, (1) that very most likely won’t happen** (Trump will lose both the popular vote and the Electoral College by a decisive margin, I am confident), and (2) even though Al Gore won more than 500,000 more popular votes than Gee Dubya Bush did in 2000, we weren’t to question Dubya’s presidential legitimacy, so fuck the Repugnican Tea Party traitors’ predictable pissing and moaning should Billary actually win the Electoral College but lose the popular vote.

It wasn’t at all a national issue when that happened for Gee Dubya, so the treasonous hypocrites could go fuck themselves until they bleed to death.

P.S. Every time that Trump mentions Bernie Sanders’ name, as he did at least three times in Sunday’s “debate,” he should get a new malignant tumor. Trump isn’t fit or worthy enough to feast on Bernie’s feces.

It’s wonderful when Trump thinks that he’s exciting Millennials by mentioning Bernie, thinks that he’s going to inherit anything like a sizable chunk of Bernie’s supporters, and when he pretends to give a shit that democratic socialist Bernie was fucked over by the Democratic National Committee.

Yes, Bernie was fucked over by the DNC, which is one of many reasons why I won’t vote for Billary and why I switched my voter registration from the Democratic Party back to the Green Party, but anyone who remotely grasps what Bernie stands for never could vote for a fascist flaming piece of dog shit like Donald Trump.

*No U.S. president in my lifetime of almost five decades had not first been vice president, a U.S. senator or the governor of a state before ascending to the White House. A shitbag like Donald Trump, who proves amply that no amount of money can buy class, always was very unlikely to break that pattern.

**Fivethirtyeight.com gives the scenario in which Billary loses the popular vote but wins the Electoral College only a 0.6 percent chance of happening.

Leave a comment

Filed under Uncategorized

Tell your ‘super-delegates’ that voting against the people is a deal breaker

If Billary Clinton wins the 2016 Democratic Party presidential nomination democratically — that is, if she legitimately wins the majority of the votes in the primary elections and caucuses — then I’ll accept that result.

That doesn’t mean that I’d vote for her in November — because I very most likely would not — but I do accept the results of fair elections.

The 2000 presidential election, for instance — I never have accepted and never will accept that result. Al Gore won the popular vote by more than a half-million votes, and there is no way in hell that George W. Bush would have “won” the 2000 presidential election were it not for his brother Jeb! having been governor of the pivotal state of Florida, then-Repugnican Florida Secretary of State Katherine Harris (as the state’s chief elections official) having been co-chair of the effort to elect Gee Dubya in Florida (no conflict of interest there!), and finally, the right-wing U.S. Supreme Court having shut the whole thing down and by so doing declaring Gee Dubya the “winner.”

I was at a “Not My President’s Day” rally at the California state Capitol in February 2001, replete with my homemade sign declaring that “George Dubious Bush” was “not my president!” (I would return to the state Capitol not too terribly long after that to protest the unelected Bush regime’s looming illegal, immoral, unjust and unprovoked — and thus treasonous — Vietraq War.)

All of that said, I didn’t vote for Al Gore, but I voted for Green Party presidential candidate Ralph Nader in November 2000. (Hold your ammo. Of course Al Gore won all of California’s electoral votes, so no, because the U.S. president is selected by the Electoral College and not by the popular vote [as it should be], my vote for Nader, which I do not regret [the charisma-free Gore didn’t even win his home state of Tennessee, but the Democratic Party hacks blame Nader voters], did not help Gee Dubya.)

But the fact that I hadn’t voted for Gore in November 2000 didn’t make me any less outraged that the presidential election was stolen by the treasonous Repugnicans, who just wanted the White House, regardless of the clearly expressed will of the American people (again, Gore had won the popular vote by more than 500,000 votes; Gee Dubya became president only through the anti-democratic Electoral College [with his theft of Florida], which must be eliminated).

Similarly, while I don’t support Billary Clinton whatsoever — and the more the Billarybots attack, the less likely I am ever to support her (the Billarybots don’t successfully shame me into supporting their ethics-free candidate, but only reinforce my beliefs about their craven candidate) — I am not a sore loser, and so I accept it if my candidate of choice doesn’t win, as long as that loss happens fairly and squarely.

So, being a lover of democracy, the blatantly anti-democratic calls of the Billarybots for Bernie Sanders to drop out of the race have enraged me. (Thankfully, as it has become clearer to the anti-democratic Democrats in name only that Sanders isn’t going to drop out before there is a clear winner who has earned the win, they’ve eased up a bit on their calls for Bernie to exit prematurely for their convenience.)

Where we stand now with the estimated pledged (that is, actually [more-or-less] democratically earned) delegate count is Billary with 1,266 and Bernie with 1,038. That means that of the democratically earned delegates (delegates earned in primary elections and caucuses), thus far it’s Billary with 54.9 percent to Bernie with 45.1 percent, a difference of 9.8 percent.

As I’ve said before, for a “fringe” candidate, Bernie is doing pretty fucking well, and for a supposedly universally beloved candidate, and for a candidate who pretty much has been running for the White House at least since 2000, when she carpetbaggingly ran for the U.S. Senate for the state of New York, Billary is not doing nearly as well as she should be doing within her own fucking party for the candidate for whom the Billarybots are saying we should just shut up and crown already.

Again, the magic number of delegates to win the 2016 Democratic Party presidential nomination is 2,383. Billary is “only” 1,117 delegates away from that, but we’re just supposed to coronate her already. Why make a dynastic member of royalty earn it?

If the battle for delegates goes to the Democratic Party convention, so be it. That would be called democracy.

Billary can’t actually get any of her “super-delegates” — the anti-democratic delegates (the [vast] majority of them apparently Democratic Party hacks who fall in line rather than vote their conscience, since, being party hacks, they have no conscience, but are only part of the hive mind) — until the party convention this summer. We can talk until we’re blue in the face about Billary’s “super-delegates,” but for today, since the hive-mind delegates can’t vote until late July, Billary has only 1,266 delegates.

How many of the “super-delegates” Bernie Sanders can win from Billary is an unknown (the “super-delegates” may say that they’re going to support one candidate but then vote for another candidate at the actual convention), but I can say two things today:

One, as I’ve already noted, the Democratic Party needs to follow the lead of the Repugnican Tea Party and force its “super-delegates” to vote with the people. (That said, as I’ve noted before, forcing the “super-delegates” to vote with the people makes the “super-delegates” redundant, and therefore, “super-delegates” need to be eliminated altogether in both parties. Any system in which the popular vote could be subverted needs to go. That would include the Electoral College, too, of course.)

Two, again, I can accept it when my chosen candidate doesn’t win an election that was conducted fairly and squarely, but anti-democratic bullshit I cannot stand.

Therefore, should Bernie Sanders win my congressional district in California’s presidential primary election on June 7 and my member of the U.S. House of Representatives, Democrat Doris Matsui, as a “super-delegate,” vote for Billary Clinton at the convention, I won’t cast a vote for Matsui ever again.

(I am assuming here, of course, that after the “super-delegates” vote, how they voted will be released publicly. I refused to vote for Matsui for years but then did vote for her in November 2014, since at least at that time she had been on the right side of many issues, but, again, if Bernie wins my congressional district and she actually votes against that as a “super-delegate,” I won’t vote for her ever again.)

I never vote for the center-right DINO U.S. Sen. Dianne Feinstein anyway, who no doubt will cast her “super-delegate” vote for Billary even if Bernie wins California on June 7, because that’s just the kind of person Dianne Feinstein is. (If memory serves, I voted for Feinstein once, when I was new to California and didn’t know any better, but that was it. Once I got to know her, I was done with her.)

And Democratic U.S. Sen. Barbara Boxer isn’t running again in November, but hopefully she would cast her “super-delegate” vote for Bernie should he win California. It would be a shitty end to her long political career if she went against the will of the state’s voters at the convention this summer.

Unfortunately, per Wikipedia’s roundup of the “super-delegates,” my U.S. representative and both of my U.S. senators have indicated that they plan to vote for Billary at the convention.

My governor, Democrat Jerry Brown, as a “super-delegate” (per Wikipedia) remains “uncommitted” (he did run against Bill Clinton for the presidential nomination in 1992…). While Brown cannot run for a third term in November 2018, for the most part I expect him to cast his “super-delegate” vote for Bernie Sanders should Bernie win California. Jerry Brown is just that kind of guy (that is, democratic as well as Democratic).

I am going to send a letter (snail mail is more effective, I believe, than is e-mail) to my elected representatives encouraging them as “super-delegates” to vote with the people of California, and informing them, if they stand for re-election, that their voting against the will of the people as a “super-delegate” is a deal breaker for any future vote from me.

I encourage you to do the same; the list of “super-delegates” (and how they have indicated they intend to cast their vote) is here, and a simple Google search will give you your “super-delegates'” contact information.

The Democratic Party, if it is to survive, must be a democratic party as well.

P.S. The next two big contests are Wisconsin (86 pledged delegates), on Tuesday, and New York (247 pledged delegates), on April 19.

Real Clear Politics’ average of polls right now has Bernie up by 2.2 percent in Wisconsin and Billary up by 27 percent in New York. However, The Huffington Post’s average of polls right now has Bernie up in Wisconsin by 4.6 percent and has Billary ahead in New York by just 12 percent and includes a graph that shows Bernie rising rapidly in the state:

So we’ll see.

If Bernie can’t win New York, I expect him to get a big chunk o’ delegates there anyway.

Leave a comment

Filed under Uncategorized

A late-in-the-game Biden run probably would only help Bernie beat Billary

Is there enough of a political difference between Joe Biden and Billary Clinton for Team Bernie Sanders to worry about Biden jumping into the presidential race at rather the last minute? Methinks not. I see establishmentarian Democrat/“Democrat” Biden drawing more support away from DINO Billary than from Bernie. A perfect alignment of the stars for us progressives would be Biden running and helping Bernie to beat Billary for the Democratic Party presidential nomination, and Donald Trump running for the White House as an independent, Ross-Perot style, and helping Bernie to win the White House by siphoning votes away from the Repugnican presidential candidate, whichever wingnut that turns out to be.

The big political news now is that Vice President Joe Biden is thinking about entering the 2016 presidential race.

I am unmoved.

I don’t feel strongly one way or the other about Joe Biden; I don’t hate him, but I don’t love him, either. I was surprised when Barack Obama picked Biden to be his running mate in 2008, as Biden had done so poorly in the 2008 Democratic Party presidential primary contest that he withdrew on January 3, after having come in fifth place in the Iowa caucuses, with only 1 percent of the vote.

At that time, Biden said that his second run for the presidency (he had run in 1988 also) would be his last. (Biden dropped out of the 1988 Democratic Party presidential primary contest after he was damaged by the accusation that he had plagiarized speech material.)

Perhaps Obama didn’t want to be overshadowed by a stronger personality were he to win the presidency, making Joe Biden a Dan-Quayle-like choice for veep. In any event, it apparently has been clear to Biden, with the exception of a “gaffe” or two, that as vice president he very much has been the beta male. No Dick Cheney role for him (at least certainly not publicly).

As vice president Joe Biden has been unremarkable, and since he at least has given the public appearance of being on board with All Things Obama, and since I find Obama’s presidency to have been incredibly disappointing, to put it mildly — as I’ve written a million times, Obama’s biggest mistake was not pushing through a progressive agenda when the Democratic Party held control of both the U.S. Senate and the U.S. House of Representatives in 2009 and 2010 (and yes, to me, the ubiquitous promises of “hope” and “change” signified progressivism, not more of the same) — for the most part I view Biden as jut another establishmentarian “Democrat,” along with Obama and Billary Clinton.

Yes, we do get to judge you by the company that you keep.

My support of Bernie Sanders for the 2016 Democratic Party presidential nomination remains unswayed and unchanged by the news that Biden might jump in.

I did enjoy, as I wrote at the time, watching Biden thoroughly thrash Paul “Pretty Boy” Ryan in the vice presidential debate of October 2012, which started the hilarious Internet meme that cast Biden as the Hulk and Ryan as the villainous pretty boy Loki, whom in the 2012 hit comic-book movie “The Avengers” the Hulk picks up and smashes to the ground, leaving him in a crater created by his own body.

But of course that doesn’t mean that Biden should be president, and after he dropped out of the presidential race in 1988 due to the plagiarism scandal and after he dropped out after the very first contest of the 2008 Democratic Party presidential primary season because he’d done so poorly in Iowa, I don’t see Biden as a strong presidential candidate now.

Yes, vice presidents often go on to run for the presidency, but of course they don’t have to. George H.W. Bush and Al Gore did (and both of them won [yes, of course Al Gore won the 2000 presidential election]), but even Dan Quayle and Dick Cheney knew better, and I put Biden’s strength somewhere between those two groups of vice presidents who did run for the presidency and who did not.

The touchy-feely report (which may or not even be true) that it (more or less) was the dying wish of Biden’s son Beau, who died of brain cancer in late May, that his father run for the presidency in 2016 might be touching for some, but it does not sway me. The presidency is far too important to allow emotional pap like that to decide it. I look at the totality of Joe Biden, and while of course I’d rather have him than uber-DINO Billary Clinton sitting in the big chair in the Oval Office, again, I still see him as a member of the Democratic Party establishment.

Bernie Sanders is not. Again, I’m still with Bernie. Whatever Biden does or doesn’t do, it won’t change that.

What I can see Joe Biden doing, however, is helping Bernie Sanders.

I can see Biden and Billary splitting the establishmentarian Democratic Party/DINO vote, which could only help Sanders, who has served in the U.S. House of Representatives and the U.S. Senate only as an independent, as a self-described little-“d” democratic socialist. (He is running on the big-“D” Democratic ticket now only because third-party/independent presidential runs are Herculean feats; it’s much easier to run for the White House within the duopolistic party system, as flawed and anti-democratic as it is.)

Sanders has distanced himself from the establishmentarian Democrats his entire political career, so his status as an outsider, which is what so many of us who are left of center want, is solid. (Perhaps you could call him the Donald Trump of the left.*)

The “democratic socialist” label hasn’t been toxic to Sanders, who for a while now has been polling nationally among Democrats and Democratic Party leaners in the double digits, more often than not second to Billary, with Biden more often than not coming in at third place, behind Billary and Bernie, when he is included in these polls.

Indeed, those who have a problem with the word “socialist” never, ever were going to vote for a Democrat for president in the first place. Indeed, even Obama, who has been a moderate at best — I don’t think that it would be inaccurate or unfair to describe Obama as having been center-right on the political spectrum — has been labeled by the lunatic fringe of the right as a “socialist.”

We shouldn’t worry about what the right-wing nut jobs who never are going to vote for a Democrat anyway are going to think. They never were going to be on our team in the first place, thank Goddess.

And young voters love Bernie Sanders.

While the enthusiasm that surrounds Sanders is not the same as that which surrounded Obama in 2008 — every presidential campaign season has its own flavor, and every presidential candidate has his or her own flavor — I’ve seen youthful enthusiasm for Sanders that I haven’t seen for the utterly uninspiring and uncharismatic Billary Clinton.

(Yes, I was one  of the thousands upon thousands of people who attended one of the thousands of Bernie Sanders gatherings across the nation on Wednesday night, and while the gathering that I attended was a good mix of generations, with young, elderly and middle-aged attendees, I’d estimate that at least half of the attendees, of which there were about 30 in total, were enthusiastic Millennials, one of whom identified himself as a Vietraq War veteran who had voted for George W. Bush until after he was sent to Bush’s bogus war in Vietraq.)

So I am perfectly fine with Joe Biden jumping into the race, even though it seems awfully late in the game for him still to be able to do so and to be successful. Not only is it perfectly his democratic right to do so if he wishes, but again, because he has been so closely aligned with the disappointing DINO Barack Obama, as has DINO Billary Clinton, I can see Biden only taking more support from Billary than from Bernie.

P.S. Should Al Gore jump into the race soon, as one Salon.com writer recently wrote he wishes would happen, that would be different. As Al Gore already won the White House in 2000, and as the writer for Salon.com correctly noted that Gore probably could bridge the establishmentarian “Democrats” and progressives (which, in my estimation, Billary can’t do and Biden can’t do much better than Billary can), I could see Gore winning the 2016 Democratic Party presidential nomination were he to run, even at this late date. He’d be a powerhouse.

But I doubt that he’ll run.

*While of course I loathe Donald Trump, the success of his presidential campaign thus far — right now he tops the Repugnican Tea Party presidential preference polls — demonstrates that a sizeable chunk of the American electorate remains displeased with the Coke Party and the Pepsi Party. (This seems to be fairly unchanged since Ross Perot, who always struck me as a wingnut [he might be labeled as libertarian or leaning libertarian, but the libertarians always have struck me as wingnuts], ran as an independent presidential candidate back in 1992, garnering just short of 19 percent of the popular vote.)

While the poor and the working class who support Trump (and the “tea party”) stupidly support him (and the “tea party”) like chickens stupidly supporting Colonel Sanders — they have the lottery mentality that they can be billionaires, too (of course, they can’t) — cannot identify the real problems of and the real enemies to the nation (the treasonously self-serving plutocrats like Trump, the Koch brothers and the Bush crime family [and yes, the Clinton crime family, too], not labor-union members and “illegals,” are destroying the nation), they at least correctly identify that the duopolistic, corporation- and plutocrat-loving Democratic Party and Repugnican Party stopped representing the majority of Americans’ best interests long ago.

Of course, just as I’d love Joe Biden to jump in and hopefully suck more votes away from Billary Clinton than from Bernie Sanders — which I surmise would be the case — I’d love for Donald Trump to pull a Ross Perot and run as an independent presidential candidate in 2016.

While some argue that Ross Perot’s run didn’t take more votes away from incumbent President George H.W. Bush than from Bill Clinton in 1992, I’ve always surmised that Perot, being right of center, of course siphoned more votes from Bush than from Clinton, thus helping Clinton to win the White House with only a plurality of the votes.

Similarly, I think it is inarguable that were Trump to run for the White House as an independent in 2016, of course he’d take more votes from the Repugnican candidate, whoever that turns out to be, than from the Democratic candidate, whoever that candidate turns out to be.

Leave a comment

Filed under Uncategorized

IMPEACH OBAMA!

President Barack Obama gestures as he speaks during a news conference in the East Room of the White House, on Wednesday, Nov. 5, 2014, in Washington. Obama is holding an afternoon news conference Wednesday to share his take on the midterm election results after his party lost control of the Senate, and lost more turf in the GOP-controlled House while putting a series of Democratic-leaning states under control of new Republican governors. (AP Photo/Pablo Martinez Monsivais)

Associated Press photo

The impeachment of Barack Obama: Bring it, bitches!

I sincerely hope that the Repugnican Tea Partiers take advantage of their new majority in the U.S. Senate and impeach President Barack Obama.

I do.

Because it will backfire.

A civics lesson is required (for many if not even most American readers) first: the U.S. House of Representatives can vote to impeach a sitting president by a simple majority vote. It’s not that hard a feat, especially in a highly poisonously partisan atmosphere, such as we have had for some time now (at least since 1998, the last time that a sitting U.S. president was impeached…).

Presidential impeachment, of course, is not the equivalent of the removal of the president. (Yes, many if not most Americans are fuzzy on the definition of the word “impeachment.”) If the House of Representatives votes to impeach, which is much like a grand jury handing down an indictment, the U.S. Senate then acts much like a courtroom (with the chief justice of the U.S. Supreme Court presiding) and the senators vote on whether or not to remove the president. (They’re supposed to act like independent, non-partisan jurors, but of course there is no avoiding politics and partisanship in such a matter as the removal of the sitting U.S. president.)

However, the U.S. Senate may remove an impeached president only on a two-thirds vote. (This constitutionally required higher threshold apparently was intended to prevent petty politics and ensure that a president is removed from office only for very good cause.) Thus, while the Repugnican-traitor-controlled House of Representatives impeached President Bill Clinton in December 1998 — as Clinton was wrapping up his sixth year in the White House, just as Barack Obama is doing now — in February 1999 the Senate acquitted Clinton, as only 50 senators, all of them Repugnicans, voted that Clinton was guilty of one or two misdeeds, either one of which could have removed Clinton from office had 67 of the senators voted that Clinton was guilty of having committed it. (To be fair, not a single Democratic senator voted Clinton to be guilty of either misdeed, and five Repugnican senators [John Chafee of Rhode Island, Susan Collins of Maine, Jim Jeffords of Vermont, Olympia Snowe of Maine and Arlen Specter of Pennsylvania — all moderate, mostly Northeastern, Repugnicans, of course] also voted Clinton as not guilty of either misdeed.)

A solid majority of Americans thought that the 1998-1999 Repugnican-led impeachment debacle was bad for the nation – because it was – and in apparent political blowback, the Democrats gained seats in both houses of Congress in the following election, in 2000.

So: The Repugnican Tea Party traitors in Congress, still bitter that a black man sits in the White House, never could get the two-thirds vote in the U.S. Senate that would be required to remove Obama from office.

An impeachment effort against Obama would be perceived by the majority of Americans as exactly what it would be: At best, the commission of a waste of time by the Repugnican-led Congress with a self-indulgent, petty political stunt instead of the addressing of the nation’s problems (an act of partisan grandstanding because Obama of course never will be removed from office) and at worst, yet another brazen attempt by the Repugnican Tea Party traitors to subvert the will of the majority of American voters, such as they did when they tried but failed to remove Bill Clinton in 1998 and when they had no problem with George W. Bush being seated in the Oval Office in early 2001 even though he’d lost the popular vote to Al Gore by more than a half-million votes (and no doubt Gore had won the pivotal state of Florida as well, but, of course, then-Florida-Gov. Jeb Bush and then-Florida-Secretary-of-State Katherine Harris made damned sure that Gee Dubya “won” Florida).

Pundits unanimously agree that the Democrats are poised to retake the U.S. Senate in 2016, when the electoral map will favor them as it favored the Repugnicans on Tuesday. (In 2016, 23 Senate seats now held by Repugnicans will be up for a vote, compared to only 10 Senate seats now held by Democrats.)

While I don’t like Billary Clinton (to put it mildly), polls have shown her around 10 points ahead of any Repugnican candidate in hypothetical 2016 presidential match-ups, and while I’m not happy about it, at this moment I don’t see an actual Democrat – that is, an actually progressive Democrat – emerging as the 2016 presidential candidate for the Democratic Party.

So 2016 looks like a bloodbath for the Repugnican Tea Party traitors already; the White House most likely will stay in Democratic hands and the Senate most likely will flip back to the Democratic Party.

If, drunk on their short-lived power, the Repugnican Tea Party traitors in D.C. act like they have the “permanent [Repugnican] majority” that they talked about during the illegitimate reign of George W. Bush (we saw how “permanent” that was), they’ll only further antagonize centrist and left-of-center voters, and November 2016 will be even worse for them than it would have been had they showed some humility and vision that extends past only two years.

Luckily, they’re not capable of showing such humility or vision.

Because of that, I should thank the Repugnican Tea Party traitors in advance for most likely inspiring me to blog much more regularly over the next two years than I have over the past year or two. (Obama’s second term thus far has been quite a snoozer.) I anticipate that they’ll give me lots of inspiration. They’ll be my muses – on crack.

True, I am ensconced here in California, which is like an isle unto itself, where, on the state level, anyway, we are not much troubled by the Repugnican Tea Party traitors. This week Democrats took every statewide office here once again, as they did in 2010, and the state Legislature remains in firm Democratic control. Both of our U.S. senators are Democrats, as are the majority of our members of the U.S. House of Representatives. As California Democratic Party head John Burton wrote in an e-mail today (with the subject line of “We’ll always have California”), “California remains a deep-blue beacon.”*

But, having lived the first 30 years of my life in the God-awful red state of Arizona, I know what it is like for the millions of Americans who languish in the red (and purple) states, and not everyone can move to California or to another blue state (and nor should they have to). It’s up to all of us progressives to do what we can to assuage the damage that the Repugnican Tea Party traitors have wreaked upon our nation. We have a duty to do our best to protect those who cannot protect themselves against the legions of right-wing traitors among us.

And I have the feeling that the Repugnican Tea Party traitors in D.C. over the next two years are going to fire us up to fight them like President Hopey-Changey hasn’t been able to fire us up for quite some time now.

*Interestingly, though, the for-profit media widely are making an “issue” of the fact that the Democrats haven’t retained a two-thirds supermajority in both houses of California’s Legislature. Wow. The bar always is set much lower for the wingnuts than it is for those of us who are left of center, isn’t it? Just as was the case with the 2000 presidential election, an actual win is always a “loss” for the left and an actual loss is always a “win” for the wingnuts. I mean, George W. Bush not only should have been impeached and removed from office, but he (and his cohorts) should have been executed for their war crimes (Vietraq War) and their crimes against humanity (Vietraq War, Hurricane Katrina), Nuremberg style, yet here the Repugnican Tea Party traitors are talking about Obama’s impeachment.

2 Comments

Filed under Uncategorized

Move along; no teatard tsunami to see here

House Majority Leader Eric Cantor of Va., listens at right as House Speaker John Boehner of Ohio, during a news conference on Capitol Hill in Washington, Tuesday, June 10, 2014. Cantor faces a challenge from a political newcomer backed by the tea party as Virginia voters go to the polls Tuesday for three congressional primaries. Cantor was once popular in the tea party but has now become its target.  (AP Photo/J. Scott Applewhite)<br /><br /><br /><br /><br /><br /><br /><br />

Associated Press photo

One primary election in which only about 65,000 people voted probably isn’t indicative of an impending “tea-party” takeover of the United States of America. That said, I certainly won’t miss prick Eric Cantor, whose political career appears to be over.

If I were an editorial cartoonist – or if I at least could draw well – I would draw an editorial cartoon of Repugnican U.S. Rep. Eric Cantor’s prone (or, I suppose, supine) body with a Gadsden flag draped over itAnother victim of the “tea party”!

(What? Too soon? Well, OK, anyway, I got that out of the way and out of my system.)

Seriously, though, soon-to-be-former House Majority Leader Eric Cantor’s first-time-in-the-nation’s-history primaried ouster from the U.S. House of Representatives yesterday has virtually no nationwide significance.

(And it’s awfully interesting how the rare actually-progressive-Democratic-Party win over a Democratic-Party-establishment/DINO incumbent almost never is touted as a Big Blue Tidal Wave that’s imminently sweeping over the nation, whereas impending right-wing deluges [Big Red Tides?] are predicted every time any “tea-party” candidate anywhere wins virtually any election. So much for the “left-wing bias” in the “lamestream media.”)

From what I’ve read of Eric Cantor’s campaign, he and his campaign staff took his re-election for granted – a big mistake. If you get too complacent in your campaign, you can find yourself in for a significant surprise after the polls close. (Not too horribly dissimilar to Cantor’s apparent complacency, to me, was Billary Clinton’s having taken her win of the 2008 Democratic Party presidential nomination for granted. She was like the cocky hare in the parable of the tortoise and the hare.)

It is notable that the “tea party” has achieved no other upsets of this magnitude in this election cycle. Repugnican U.S. Sens. Mitch McConnell and Lindsey Graham — either of whose scalp I would have loved to see — both safely won their primaries, for example (of course, it’s harder to unseat a sitting U.S. senator than it is a sitting member of the House).

It strikes me that Cantor’s loss yesterday was due to factors that apply mostly only to that particular contest (including, apparently, the actor who once played “Cooter” encouraging Democratic [and other] voters to vote for Cantor’s “tea party” opponent in the open primary in order to unseat Cantor and also a low voter turnout of only around 65,000).

Because of The Fall of the House of Cantor (Cantorgeddon?) are we now witnessing a nationwide “tea party” resurgence?

Puuuhlease. Some facts:

A nationwide ABC News/Washington Post poll taken less than two weeks ago showed that only 39 percent of Americans “strongly support” or “somewhat support” the “tea party” – while 46 percent “strongly oppose” or “somewhat oppose” the teatards. While only 11 percent in the poll “strongly support” the fascists, 24 percent “strongly oppose them.” (Fifteen percent, for some reason, were “unsure.”)

In late April, a nationwide NBC News/Wall Street Journal poll asked respondents, “Do you consider yourself a supporter of the Tea Party Movement?” Only 24 percent responded “yes,” while 66 percent responded “no” (with 10 percent being “unsure” or stating that it “depends”).

Just about three months ago, in March, a nationwide Bloomberg poll asked, “In your view, is the Tea Party today a mostly positive or mostly negative force in American politics?” Only 29 percent responded “mostly positive,” while 53 percent responded “mostly negative.”

Going back to December (to demonstrate the pattern here), a nationwide CBS News/New York Times poll asked, “Do you consider yourself to be a supporter of the Tea Party movement, or not?” Only 23 percent said yes; 63 percent said no.

The “tea party” cannot maintain even a solid 30 percent of strong support in most nationwide polls, but we should be quaking in our boots over the fucktards in the tricorne hats because Eric Cantor went down in flames yesterday? Really?

The percentage of Americans who are lost-cause, going-to-take-it-with-them-to-their-graves wingnuts seems to have been steady for some years now, and for years now I have put that percentage around 25 percent (but no more than 30 percent).

These would be, for the very most part, the very same right-wing nut jobs who still approved of the job that former “President” George W. Bush was doing in late 2008 and early 2009, even as our nation’s economy was crumbling all around us.

These are your die-hard, dyed-in-the-wool wingnuts. Today, they call themselves the “tea party,” but they were with us long before they started calling themselves that; they were instrumental in the blatant theft of the White House in 2000 and in the partisan impeachment of Bill Clinton in the 1990s, and they were with us long before then.

There are enough teatards – about 25 percent, maybe 30 percent of Americans – to throw Repugnican Party primary elections, in which the ultra-right-wingers participate religiously (literally and figuratively), but in general elections, the teatards don’t do nearly as well, especially in blue and in purple states and in the nation as a whole.

That said, I do give the teatards credit for continuing to drag their party further and further to the right. I mean, to a large degree they have been achieving their evil political aims (so much so that I usually refer to their party as the Repugnican Tea Party), whereas the establishmentarian Democratic Party, as one commentator has pointed out, routinely just ignores its progressive/left-wing base and continues also to drift further and further to the right, seeking not to please its base, but to please those of the center-right (and even those who are pretty far right, which is infuckingsane, since those people aren’t going to convert [look at how well the “Kumbaya” bullshit worked for Barack Obama!] and since it only erodes the base, for fuck’s sake).

While it seems to me that too much widespread (and most likely only short-term) Repugnican Tea Party success could spell the end of the “tea party” and perhaps even the end of the Repugnican Party (after the nation had overdosed on the far-right-wing ideology that at least approaches if it doesn’t achieve [or hell, even surpass] fascism), the fact that the establishmentarian Democrats (the DINOs) also keep tacking to the right (at the very least on economic [if not on social/“cultural”] issues) tends to give the American populace (perhaps especially the “undecideds”) the idea that going further and further to the right is the way to go.

In this regard, the DINOs are aiding and abetting the teatards in the teatards’ agenda to drag the nation further and further to the right. (Gee, thanks, “Democrats”!)

Yeah,won’t be supporting DINO Billary Clinton, who as of late has been making comments very apparently meant to position her to the right of Barack Obama (who already is center-right), just as she did as she grew increasingly desperate in the overlong, dragged-out 2008 Democratic presidential primary election season. (Here’s a nice little commentary on this very topic.)

I couldn’t support Billary in 2008 because of her right-wing stances and her crass political opportunism (the very same political opportunism that led her to vote for the unelected Bush regime’s bogus and thus treasonous Vietraq War in October 2002), and I can’t support her now – or ever, very most likely.

But don’t blame me. Blame the post-Jimmy-Carter, Clintonian Democratic Party, which shits and pisses on its base with regularity, something that even the Repugnicans, as stupid as they are, don’t dare to do, and which to this point hasn’t given us any viable 2016 presidential candidates who are more inspiring than the uber-uninspiring Billary Fucking Clinton. (I could support Elizabeth Warren, Howard Dean or Al Gore, to name three, but will anyone who is viable dare get in Queen Billary’s way?)

And don’t fear a “tea-party” tsunami in and of itself. The teatards don’t have the numbers and their insane and evil ideology, whenever put into nationwide practice, soon enough collapses upon itself. (We saw this with the eight-year reign of the unelected, treasonous Bush regime.)

Fear instead a sold-out, ever-right-lurching Democratic Party that doesn’t fucking know what the fuck an opposition party is and that year by year allows the seawall that would protect us from any actual “tea-party” tsunami to continue to crumble from neglect.

Leave a comment

Filed under Uncategorized

Political future of Repug thug in a suit should be grim

U.S. Representative King and Grimm talk to media after discussing relief fund hold up for Hurricane Sandy victims in Washington in this file photo

Reuters photo

Repugnican U.S. Rep. Michael Grimm, who might want to consider a switch to playing football, is shown in D.C. earlier this month.

The biggest news from last night’s State of the Union address, pathetically, was the post-address thuggery by a Repugnican member of the U.S. House of Representatives from New York.

U.S. Rep. Michael Grimm, very stupidly on camera, threatened a significantly smaller male TV news reporter who had dared to (try to) ask Grimm about Grimm’s current legal and ethical troubles, especially involving his campaign finances, “If you ever do that to me again, I’ll throw you off the fucking balcony” and “I’ll break you in half like a little boy.”

Pro football player Richard Sherman, as Salon.com’s Joan Walsh has pointed out, recently has been termed a “thug” — the opinion of many is that if you are black (as Sherman is), you are more likely to be called a “thug” than is a white person who has engaged in the equivalent behavior, and that “thug” thus is a coded racist term — and I remember well that the wingnuts routinely called union members “thugs” when union members dared to fight to preserve their rights in the aftermath of Repugnican Wisconsin Gov. Scott Walker’s assault on workers’ rights in early 2011.

While “thug” certainly can be used as a thinly veiled racist epithet, the members of the right wing in general, in my observation and experience, deem those who act with assertiveness (physical or not) with whom they disagree as “thugs,” whereas those with whom they agree are almost never “thugs,” no matter what they do.

How about the “Brooks Brothers riot” in Florida on November 19, 2000?

As Wikipedia recounts, on that date

Hundreds of “paid GOP crusaders” descended upon South Florida to protest the state’s recounts, with at least half a dozen of the demonstrators at Miami-Dade paid by George W. Bush’s recount committee. Several of these protesters were identified as Republican staffers and a number later went on to jobs in the Bush administration.

The “Brooks Brothers” name reinforces the allegation that the protesters, in corporate attire, sporting “Hermès ties” were astroturfing, as opposed to [actually being] local citizens concerned about [vote-]counting practices.

The demonstration was organized by Republican operatives, sometimes referred to as the “Brooks Brothers Brigade,” to oppose the recount of 10,750 ballots during the Florida recount. The canvassers decided to move the counting process to a smaller room and restrict media access to 25 feet away while they continued. At this time, New York Rep. John Sweeney told an aide to “Shut it down.”

The demonstration turned violent, and according to the New York Times, “several people were trampled, punched or kicked when protesters tried to rush the doors outside the office of the Miami-Dade supervisor of elections. Sheriff’s deputies restored order.” Democratic National Committee aide Luis Rosero was kicked and punched. Within two hours after the riot died down, the canvassing board unanimously voted to shut down the count, in part due to perceptions that the process wasn’t open or fair, and in part because the court-mandated deadline was impossible to meet. …

Keep in mind that Bush officially “won” Florida, and thus the White House, by only 537 votes.

Would any Repugnican on the planet call the “Brooks Brothers riot” what it was, which was a mob of fucking thugs trying — and apparently at least partially succeeding — to influence the outcome of a presidential fucking election in their favor through the use of intimidation (the threat of harm from physical violence) and actual physical violence?

No, to the Repugnicans, especially those of the “tea-party” ilk, this incident was wholly justifiable, because its goal was to put George W. Bush in the White House even though Al Gore had won more than a half-million more votes than Bush had.

Similarly, there is no justifying the shit that the thug Michael Grimm pulled last night.

It’s understandable that Grimm was not pleased to be asked by a TV news reporter about an issue that could threaten Grimm’s political future. And Grimm has claimed that he had been promised by the local TV news outfit that the question would not come up.

But even if that is true, it doesn’t justify his threat to “throw” the reporter “off the fucking balcony” and “break [him] in half like a little boy.” (My understanding is that such verbal threats constitute at least a misdemeanor.)

We can expect such language from football players, I think — I mean, let’s get real; NFL players are essentially modern-day gladiators –but can we excuse such language from so-called statesmen?

Grimm initially apparently refused to apologize, stating, “I verbally took the reporter to task and told him off, because I expect a certain level of professionalism and respect, especially when I go out of my way to do that reporter a favor. I doubt that I am the first member of Congress to tell off a reporter, and I am sure I won’t be the last.”

Well, actually, Grimm just might be the first member of Congress ever to have threatened to throw a reporter “off the fucking balcony” and “break [him] in half like a little boy.” On camera, anyway.

And I find it funny that Grimm, who apparently lacks all self-awareness, should fault anyone else for lacking “a certain level of professionalism and respect,” when he certainly rather graphically displayed such a lack last night. 

My guess is that other members of Grimm’s pathetic party since spoke to him, because the latest statement that Grimm has issued is this:

I was wrong. I shouldn’t have allowed my emotions to get the better of me and lose my cool. I have apologized to Michael Scotto [the TV news reporter whom Grimm attacked], which he graciously accepted, and will be scheduling a lunch soon. In the weeks and months ahead I’ll be working hard for my constituents on issues like flood insurance that is so desperately needed in my district post-[Hurricane] Sandy.

In the end, I suppose, it will be up to the voters of Grimm’s congressional district to decide his fate in November.

If those voters have a brain cell among them, Grimm’s political future indeed is grim, and ironically, his on-camera blow-up probably has done him far more political damage than he would have sustained had he just manned up and answered the fucking question, even evasively and using the usual politico-speak, such as he used in his belated, apparently begrudging apology.

In the meantime: A “thug” is anyone of any race or any political ideology who uses intimidation (the threat of violence) or actual violence to try to obtain his or her objectives. (Admittedly, women rarely are called “thugs,” although I believe in equality of the two sexes, so I see no problem with the designation being made for women.)

So, indeed, if Richard Sherman is a “thug,” then Michael Grimm most certainly is also.

P.S. Of the State of the Union address itself, I don’t have much to say. Barack Obama has a solid history of lofty rhetoric but scant political results. And I still blame him for having squandered his political capital thoroughly in 2009 and 2010, thereby helping the Repugnicans regain control of the U.S. House in November 2010 and thus handicapping his presidency ever since.

I already am looking past Obama and forward to the next president, frankly, as are millions of other Americans, I’m sure.

Leave a comment

Filed under Uncategorized